DALJIT SINGH MADAN Vs. SURINDER KUMAR
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-23
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 30,1983

DALJIT SINGH MADAN Appellant
VERSUS
SURINDER KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SATYA PRAKASH V. BALRAM BHASIN [REFERRED]
FAQIR CHAND V. RAM RATTAN [REFERRED]
PRITHVI RAJ VS. NIRMAL MULTANI [REFERRED]
MANOHAR LAL VS. NARAIN DAS AND DDA [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

MAHINDER PAL SINGH VS. MIRAN GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-1985-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LAL VS. KUNDAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1986-12-16] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. - (1.)Approxely 9 out of 10 appeals which come to this court are concerned with disputes about the correct construction of Acts of Parliament. These three appeals are concerned with the correct construction of Section 14(l)(k) read with sub-section (1 1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act). In particular it is concerned with the exact parameter of sub-section (II).
(2.)The Facts: The appellant landlord has sought ejectment of his three tenants on the ground that the premises were let for residence and that contrary to the conditions of the lease of the land granted to him by the President of India the premises are being used for a commercial purpose. Three separate petitions were filed against the three tenants in 1973. The Additional Controller by order dated 21-1-1978 passed orders of eviction against all three of them under section 14(l)(k) of the Act. He called upon them to stop'the commercial use of the premises within a period of 2 months, if they failed to stop the misuse they were ordered to be evicted. The Additional Controller found as a fact that the premises had been let for residential purpose and that the tenants were using them for commercial purpose. This he found contrary to the terms of the lease granted by the President of India to the landlord wherein the prescribed use of the premises was residential only
(3.)The tenants appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed these appeals and directed the tenants to deposit the misuse charges or stop using the premises for commercial purpose. If this is not done then the tenants were ordered to be evicted. But if they paid the misuse charges demanded by the Land and Development Officer on behalf of the President of India then the tenants were not to be evicted. The Tribunal then provided in its order that in case the L. & D. 0. decides not to Condone the misuse then in that case the landlord shall inform the tenants about such decision of the L. & D. 0. and the tenants will in that case stop misuse of the premises within a period of one month from the date of communication. In case of their failure to do so eviction order on the ground covered by clause (k) shall be deemed to have been passed against the defaulting tenants.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.